|
|
|
 | ||
 | ||
| ||
 | ||
| ||
 | ||
| ||
 | ||
| ||
 | ||
| ||
 | ||
| ||
 | ||
| ||
|
|
Brief History of the Judicial Disciplinary Process in PA
The Judicial Inquiry and Review Board The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1968 established a specific mechanism for the discipline of judicial officers, independent of the legislature, governor, or trial court.1 The pertinent provisions, found in former Article V, §18, created the Judicial Inquiry and Review Board, which had the duty and authority to investigate reports of judicial misconduct, as well as to prosecute and adjudicate them. The flaw most obvious in the pre-1968 Constitutional system, and which provided a disincentive to implementing any of the earlier provisions, was the lack of any mechanism for imposing less serious disciplinary consequences than removal upon a judicial officer who had engaged in improper judicial conduct. The 1968 Constitution empowered the Judicial Inquiry and Review Board to impose sanctions less severe than removal from office. The Board was composed of nine members: three judges of the courts of common pleas (from different judicial districts), two judges of the Superior Court, all of whom were selected by the Supreme Court; and two non-judge members of the bar of the Supreme Court and two non-lawyer electors, all of whom were selected by the Governor. Members served four-year terms. The Board investigated, prosecuted and adjudicated the charges against the judicial officer.2 The Board's adjudication, however, consisted only of recommendations to the Supreme Court whose review was entirely de novo.
Back to The Two Tier System main page
1The legislature retains its authority to remove by the impeachment process, Pa. Const., Article VI, §§4-6. and the trial courts retain their authority to remove upon conviction of "misbehavior in office or for any infamous crime," Pa. Const., Article VI §7.
2This is known as a "one-tier" system where all functions are the responsibility of one body.
|